The existence of God Based on Religious Experience
1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)
In contrast to the classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, the argument from religious experience doesn’t just entail a set logical of points arriving at a conclusion on a piece of paper, rather it also necessitates sense-based experience, tangible to the individual who experiences the divine.
First and foremost, we must classify the argument from religious experience.
In general, philosophical arguments usually take one of two forms: either they are deductive arguments, moving from general principles to unfolding the logical implications (e.g. the ontological argument); or they are inductive arguments, proposing the best explanation for a set of observations (e.g. the cosmological argument [“God is first cause”] and the teleological argument [“God is the final cause”]). Inductive arguments therefore lead to conclusions that are probabilities, which may require empirical verification. The argument from religious experience can be described as an inductive argument. And the inductive argument, reduced to a logical form, can be described as:
P1: If an entity is directly experienced, it must exist;
P2: God is the sort of being that can be directly experienced; P3: People have claimed, in fact, to have experienced God directly; C: Therefore God exists.
The argument from religious experience also takes the form of an appeal to intuition (direct, immediate knowledge). In this regard, it is more of an assertion than a sophisticated, effable argument. Peter Donovan argues that we can essentially know God by religious experience, implying that experiencing God is a superior way of knowing him (intuitively) than our Reason (man’s mental capacity).
In contrast to the classical arguments for the existence of God, namely the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments, the argument from religious experience doesn’t just entail a set logical of points arriving at a conclusion on a piece of paper, rather it also necessitates sense-based experience, tangible to the individual who experiences the divine.
First and foremost, we must classify the argument from religious experience.
In general, philosophical arguments usually take one of two forms: either they are deductive arguments, moving from general principles to unfolding the logical implications (e.g. the ontological argument); or they are inductive arguments, proposing the best explanation for a set of observations (e.g. the cosmological argument [“God is first cause”] and the teleological argument [“God is the final cause”]). Inductive arguments therefore lead to conclusions that are probabilities, which may require empirical verification. The argument from religious experience can be described as an inductive argument. And the inductive argument, reduced to a logical form, can be described as:
P1: If an entity is directly experienced, it must exist;
P2: God is the sort of being that can be directly experienced; P3: People have claimed, in fact, to have experienced God directly; C: Therefore God exists.
The argument from religious experience also takes the form of an appeal to intuition (direct, immediate knowledge). In this regard, it is more of an assertion than a sophisticated, effable argument. Peter Donovan argues that we can essentially know God by religious experience, implying that experiencing God is a superior way of knowing him (intuitively) than our Reason (man’s mental capacity).